pressing industrial revolution, but that she was making of industrial revolution a pretense to move and concentrate her armies, and thus to make a precedent which would be of the utmost danger to France.

The Allies are willing to listen to Germany's representatives and to meet German delegates in order to consider what interpretation of the Treaty is best for all concerned as regards Germany's economic future and the building up of industrial conditions so as to make it possible for her to fulfill her obligations. A meeting with the German Chancellor is. to take place at Spa in Belgium on May 25. But they are not willing for a moment to allow Germany to violate the Treaty. first and discuss the matter afterwards.

.

The San Remo meeting certainly brought France and Great Britain more closely together. They tell Germany that "the unity of the Allies for execution of the Treaty is as solid as it was for war.' The incident of France's advance has had the good effect of proving to the Allies themselves that there are occasions when prompt action is so necessary that instant joint decision must be made or the Power most immediately concerned must act. It is fair to assume that hereafter there will be less "shilly-shally" and theoretical discussion if Germany again affronts the Powers. And, first of all, if this declaration is followed out, Germany will be quickly forced to fulfill her broken pledges about disarmament, destruction of war material, and the decrease of her armies.

ARMENIA AND THE
UNITED STATES

HE press announces that the conference or council of the Allies at San Remo is asking America to accept a mandatory for Armenia and asking President Wilson to act as an arbitrator and determine what the boundaries of the new Armenia should be. It is quite clear that our country is in no position to accept a mandatory for any foreign community. It is divided in sentiment on the question whether it ought to assume any responsibility for communities outside its own geographical boundaries. In the present condition of the President's health, the disorganized condition of the Administration, and the divided sentiment of the country, we are in no position to pledge ourselves to protect Armenia, and should be very unlikely to fulfill adequately such a pledge if we were to make it. But we can see no reason why the. President might not accept appointment as an arbitrator to determine the boundaries of Armenia, provided the conditions which have always been attached to international arbitration are complied

with. A correspondent of the New York "Times" suggests that if the President assumed the position of arbitrator it would be the duty of America to enforce his decision. This seems to us absurd. Neither in national nor international arbitration has the arbitrator ever assumed the responsibility of enforcing his decision. If the President should accede to this request of the Powers, either the parties immediately concerned-Turkey, Armenia, probably Greece, and perhaps England and France, since they have accepted a mandatory for neighboring countries should agree beforehand to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, or else the European Powers should agree to enforce that decision by whatever military power may be required for the purpose.

Upon this condition America, through its President, might well determine for the suffering Armenians what their boundaries should be.

CAILLAUX

Ο*

N April 22 the French Senate, sitting as a High Court, convicted Joseph Caillaux, former Prime Minister of France, not, as was anticipated by some, of high treason, but of having been close to treasonable ambitions. The verdict read: "Guilty of commerce and correspondence with the enemy." As interpreted by the Senators, who were the judges, "commerce" did not mean financial trading; it meant commerce by means of common ideas. " Correspondence," in this particular case, was employed in the sense of association.

Thus closes a case, famous, first, be

Wide World Photos

i

cause of the principal figure's prom nence; second, because of the circum. stances attending his accusation.

In 1899 Caillaux became Minister of Finance in the Waldeck-Rousseau Cabi net. Later he was appointed to the sam post by Premier Clemenceau. In 1911 Caillaux became Premier himself, and two years later was Minister of Financ in the Doumergue Cabinet. In the following year his wife killed Gasto Calmette, editor of "Figaro," actuatec by Calmette's savage criticisms of her husband, who before the war had already aroused suspicion of graft, political corruption, and a weakness for Germany. During the war, so the evidence goes to show, Caillaux was in touch with individuals, such as the executed Bolo Pasha, who were known to be either German agents or those who had dealings with Germans. He expected, so the evidence indicated, to come back to power when France should weary of the war, confess defeat, and signify her willingness to accept a German-made peace. In January, 1918, Clemenceau, again Premier, ordered Caillaux's arrest. The prisoner has been under detention for twenty-seven months.

The verdict meant a prison sentence of three years, but the twenty-seven months entitle him to that much reduction from his sentence of thirty-six months; in addition, under the French prison regulations, nine months in a cell constitutes a year's detention. The court decree, however, prevents him from living in several departments and cities of France. Another feature of the penalty inflicted upon Caillaux is the loss both of his right

to vote and of his eligibility to hold public office.

Such a man's acquittal would have been, as was his wife's discharge before the war, a travesty on justice. Fortunately, French history is not altogether made up of travesties. There are also, and, we think, predominantly, great passages in it of pure justice.

THE EDUCATIONAL BONUS LAW
OF WISCONSIN

Nation, it may be interesting to make
N studying the problem of bonus legis

an impartial survey of what one of the States has already done for its ex-soldiers. Many States have already passed bonus legislation of one kind or another, but the legislation of the State of Wisconsin affords perhaps the most interesting example of benefits actually conferred upon men who saw service in the war.

The State of Wisconsin was one of the first States to outline a comprehensive manner of expressing its gratitude to its soldiers in the war. There were three elements in its programme:

1. The provision was made for some immediate aid to soldiers during their period of convalescence, and particularly for the period until the Federal authorities could provide adequately for the disabled and wounded soldiers. To fulfill this part of the programme the State organized what was known as the Service Recognition Board and appropriated for this purpose $500,000. The 1919 State Legislature made provision for this early in the session.

2. The second part of its programme was to provide some form of cash bonus for the soldiers that should be paid at the earliest possible moment. And during the 1919 regular session there was passed a cash bonus bill providing that each soldier in the service should receive $10 for each month in service, with a minimum of $50 for persons who had been in the service less than five months. This bill provided for raising during the year 1919-20 a tax of $15,000,000, $8,000,000 of which was to be raised by income tax on the incomes of 1918, and the remainder to be raised by a property tax.

3. The State, not satisfied with this provision for its soldiers, considered during the regular session an educational bonus for soldiers providing for $30 a month while they were in regular attendance at educational institutions of college grade. The Governor felt that the law was too restrictive in its operation and vetoed it, but promised that the State Board of Education would make an inquiry into the whole subject in cooperation with the Adjutant-General. This was done, and as a result of a very comprehensive investigation recommen

dations were submitted to the Governor, which he made the basis of a call for a special legislative session after the service men indicated their desire to take advantage of any educational opportunity that might be offered.

The special session met on September 8, and within two days had passed the Educational Bonus Law, providing educational opportunities for a period of five years to the ex-service men of the State and to cost, at a maximum, $10,000,000 during the five-year period. The law portunity: provides three forms of educational op

1. A full-time educational opportunity extending over a period of four years for each person, with a bonus of $1,080 payable in monthly installments of $30 per month. There is no restriction upon the grade of school which may be attended. Under this provision of the law there are a few students in the elementary schools, many in the intermediate schools, and some are pursuing the highest research work in the universities and professional schools. There is no restriction upon the kind of educational opportunity that may be secured. More than 3,000 students are attending the colleges of the State, 500 are attending the normal schools, 313 are in the high schools, and the remainder are in special schools within the State, except for almost 300 students who are in out-of-State institutions. Some indication of the character of the work which these students take may be shown by the special types of institutions that some of them are attending: A school of osteopathy, institute of technology, academy of fine arts, college of dental surgery, a theological seminary, a school of watchmaking, a veterinary college, a school of aviation, a college of photography, a monotype school, a flute-playing school, a college of ophthalmology, a textile school, and an institution for the blind. At the present time more than 5,000 students have been assigned under this section of the law.

2. The second type of educational opportunity offered is that of correspondence instruction through the University Extension Division. The four hundred courses of the University Extension Division are offered without cost to any of the soldier bonus men who are not in full-time regular attendance at educational institutions. This privilege is therefore available to the 100,000 bonus men who are receiving the cash bonus of $10 a month for each month in service. More than 2,100 are taking advantage of this provision of the law.

3. The third educational opportunity is the provision for special instruction in special classes wherever fifteen ex-service men or women join together in a petition to the State Board of Education for the organization of such classes in their home

cities. At the present time about fifteen such classes have been organized.

The Educational Bonus Law of Wisconsin is attracting considerable attention in various States in the Union, particularly in Montana, New Jersey, and Maryland. The Maryland Legislature, which recently adjourned, has had before it a bill similar to the Wisconsin bill, which was passed almost unanimously by their Assembly, but was held up in the Senate Finance Committee and killed. Inquiries from other parts of the country are coming to Major Edward A. Fitzpatrick, Secretary of the Wisconsin State Board of Education, daily, and it would seem highly probable that in the Legislatures having sessions beginning. January, 1921, the Wisconsin idea may be used as the basis of further soldier bonus legislation.

HARVARD LETS DOWN A
PIECE OF A BAR

THE Harvard Graduate School of Edu

cation has been definitely established by vote of the Governing Boards of Harvard University, and it has been finally decided that the new school will admit women. Henry Wyman Holmes, now Professor of Education at Harvard, has been elected Dean.

The decision to admit women to the new school is of special interest. This is the first time that women have been admitted to any regular department of Ilarvard University. Certain organizations connected with that University, such as the Harvard Summer School and the School of Public Health, have admitted women, but no regular department has done so in the history of Harvard. The adoption of the new policy necessitates a change in the statutes of the University. This new step, which has been expected for some time, was taken as a result of the feeling at Harvard that women play far too important a part in the work of American schools to permit a graduate school of education to exclude them without losing a great opportunity for usefulness. The general policy of Harvard with respect to co-education is said to be not at all affected by this decision. The Harvard authorities consider the fundamental question of advantages and disadvantages of co-education to be a question still to be settled by study and investigation, and they hope that in the study of problems such as this the new Harvard School of Education can play an important part. It is not now expected, therefore, that any other Harvard departments will follow the example of the school in admitting women.

Nor is there any absolute principle under which such a course is definitely desirable. There is no more reason why

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton should become entirely co-educational than there is for a similar change being made at Vassar, Smith, or Wellesley, or for the State Universities to abandon their present excellent system of admitting both men and women on equal terms. The educational idealist who wishes to reduce everything to the dead level of uniformity is no friend of education.

The establishment of the Harvard School was made possible by a gift of half a million dollars from the General Education Board and by the allocation to the school of nearly eight hundred thousand dollars from the Harvard Endowment Fund. The remainder of the endowment of two million was collected by the University. The fund thus raised has been named in honor of Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Thac so much of the act of Congress entitled "An act to regulate enlistments in the Army of the United States," approved August 1, 1894, as provides that "in time of peace no person (except an Indian) who cannot speak, read, and write the English language" be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Previous to the World War it was undesirable to enlist non-English-speaking recruits, but during the war Army officers, making a virtue of a necessity and with a large vision of the possibilities for Americanization which lay in military service, developed a system of teaching their foreign-tongued recruits to read and write English. The system has emphasized not only the learning of our language, but also the absorption of our National ideas and ideals. The Outlook has described this recruit educational training in previous issues, and may have occasion to do so again in the near future.

If this bill fails of passage, all this carefully developed system of constructive Americanization will go by the board. So far as we know, there is no opposition to the bill save that to be found in Congressional indifference. Somehow it seems as though Congress could find time to pass so short a bill with such large possibilities of benefit.

T

THE REAL ISSUE

HE country is very much stirred up over the question who shall be the nominees from whom the people must select their next President. But the real issue before the American people is very much more important than that.

The world to-day may be divided into two parties. They are composed of different groups, but there is a fundamental dividing line between the two. One believes that the community should own all property employed in industry, should manage and control all industries, should allot to each man his job, and should determine for each man his income. The other party believes in the inalienable right of every man to select his job, to determine under what conditions and with what comrades he will do his work, and to possess the wealth which by his industry he produces, under such Government control as may be necessary to protect the personal rights and promote the general welfare of all. One party believes in Government ownership of all capital and Government management of all industry; the other party believes in individual ownership of capital and in industrial liberty.

The first and most fundamental question for the people of the United States to determine next fall is this: Which of these two principles do they approve? In which direction do they wish the Nation to turn its steps-toward the community ownership of property and community management of industry, or toward individual ownership and industrial liberty?

This issue is under discussion in all the civilized nations. In Russia in very considerable sections communism is already at least temporarily established. All the property is owned and all the industries are controlled by the Government, under the direction of able, autocratic, and unscrupulous leaders. In Germany the people, dazed by the sudden disaster of a wholly unexpected defeat, are tossed helplessly back and forth between communism and militarism, the despotism of the mob and the despotism of the army. In France and Italy the rights of property and the liberty of industry are still preserved; but they are threatened. If Bolshevism, triumphant in western Russia, should triumph in Germany, it might easily become a serious peril to all neighboring nations. In England and America Anglo-Saxon traditions still prevail, but they are not unquestioned; and in America, with its large foreign and unassimilated populations, an active propaganda against the rights of private property and industrial liberty is carried on by fanatical agitators, counseled and encouraged by

benevolently minded but unbalanced enthusiasts, and liable at any time to be reinforced by revolutionary groups angered by real or fancied injustice.

Thus the industrial problem is a world problem. And this fact raises the second question on which the American people are to vote next fall. Shall we recognize this as a world problem and unite with other civilized nations in the resolve to protect the right of every individual to direct his life, select his job, and own the product of his industry? Or shall we treat our industrial problem as a purely domestic problem, try to persuade ourselves that the condition of the rest of the world does not concern us, and look on with serene indifference while Bolshevism triumphs in Russia, anarchy in Germany, and both threaten modern civilization in France and Italy, and perhaps even in England?

The third question which the people of the United States have to determine next November is, To what political party will they give a power of attorney to conduct the affairs of their Government during the next critical four years ?

Each one of these three questions is more important than the question who shall be the nominees for President from whom we must make our choice next fall, or even the question, Whom should the people elect?

We have no candidate to nominate for the Presidency. While both our traditions and our predilections incline us to favor the party of Washington not of Jefferson, of Lincoln not of Buchanan, of Roosevelt not of Wilson, we reserve our judgment respecting parties and candidates in the coming Presidential election until the parties have indicated their programmes and their candidates.

But we believe in the four fundamental rights of man: his right to his life, and therefore to liberty; to the products of his own industry, and therefore to personal property; to the sacredness of the family, on which his happiness chiefly depends and in which his greatest service to the world is rendered; and to his reputation, which no liar has a right by private gossip or public address to stain.

These inalienable rights are to-day attacked from a new quarter and by new forces. It is the right and the duty of all civilized nations to co-operate in protecting them from criminal fanatics, operating behind a screen of sometimes generousminded enthusiasts. This is a new phase of an age-long campaign between the claim of the few to govern the many and the right of the many to govern themselves. The right of every man to direct his own life, and, in comradeship with his fellow-men, to direct the life of their community, is a divine right. The remedy for whatever despotism capitalists have

possessed is not the substitute of another despotism that of the proletariat; the remedy is the well-guarded liberty of the individual. To maintain and develop that liberty should be the common aim and should have the co-operative action of all liberty-loving peoples.

No man is entitled to the vote of loyal Americans unless he believes, and the party which he represents believes, in the rights of industrial liberty and private ownership, and is ready to co-operate with all Americans at home and with all civilized communities abroad in protecting those inalienable rights.

tions of employers and organizations of workmen. Whether we like it or not, we can no more go back to the open shop, which means the unquestioned supremacy of the employer, than we can go back to the hand loom for our clothes or to the town crier for our news. We can palliate the evils of the two warring camps in industry, the combinations of capital in one camp and the trade unions in the other, by compelling both to submit to the regulation of law. But the evils can be removed only by going forward, not backward.

What is the goal of such forward progress? Partnership between capital and labor instead of antagonism and war

SHOP

N another page Senator Poindexter discusses the labor question with his accustomed vigor. With the legal aspects of his argument we are in hearty agreement. He has justice, reason, and precedent behind him when he says that "private citizens are not allowed to settle their disputes by force" and that by the same logic groups of employers and employees "cannot be allowed to settle their differences by the application of force and violence." Organizations of labor, as we have more than once said, must be made as responsible to the law as organizations of capital, and some way must be found by which essential industries shall not be brought to a standstill by industrial quarrels.

66

But we cannot agree with Senator Poindexter that what is known as the 66 open shop" will remedy the evils which he so clearly points out. Theoretically Theoretically every worker, whether he be a handworker or brain-worker, "should be free to pursue his vocation as one of his inalienable rights." But the history of trade-unionism shows that in our industrial system the workman was not free to pursue his vocation when the open shop was the prevailing condition in factory, mine, railway, and workshop. The open shop meant the absolute control of the worker by the employer. Skilled artisans throughout the civilized world have come to believe, and we think their belief is justified by their experience, that trade unions have greatly improved their material condition. The open shop, with the essential right which it confers on the employer to fix wages, to determine conditions and hours of labor, and to discharge at will, has come to be as abhorrent to the wage-worker as Senator Poindexter says the trade union is to the employer.

Out of the seventy-four years' struggle for supremacy between capital and labor has grown the present system of collective bargaining between organiza

Is there any prospect of such a goal being reached? To us the prospect seems brighter to-day, in spite of the crippling strikes in productive industry, than it has been for twenty-five years.

The promise for the future lies in the rapid spread among both employers and employees of the idea of what is called in general terms Industrial Democracy, or in specific language the Shop Committee Plan. The fundamental principle of this idea is that the wage-workers shall have, through the election of delegates or committees, some voice in the management of industry, especially as regards hours and conditions of labor, productive efficiency, and profits. If, through the practical application of this principle, capital and labor can be converted from inimical and mutually suspicious antagonists into partners working for mutual interests and with mutual confidence, American industry may enter upon a phase of productive efficiency and creative satisfac

tion such as it has never known before in its entire history.

S

"SWEETISM"

ENATOR DAVENPORT in another column has written about the political enormity of the so-called Lusk Bills which passed the New York State Legislature by large majorities, and which, if actively administered, would put the human mind of the State of New York into a strait-jacket, under rigid secret police discipline. Such action by an American legislative body in the twentieth century seems incredible, but it is by no means the whole story of a session appalling in its possibilities of political and social disaster. Sweetism— that is, the political philosophy and prac

of the smaller-visioned but controlling legislative element of the Republican machine, it seems to have lost all human touch. Sweetism makes the Tammany machine men in the New York Legislature look like real leaders of the people. Almost any small man can be a political czar under the system of rules prevailing in the Assembly of the State of New York, and he can be a very dangerous czar just because he is small. The method of the trial of the five Socialists, the stupid Lusk Bills, establishing secret police and espionage all through the State over labor and school-teachers and all private opinion of every kind, the powerful lobbies overrunning the Legislature under Sweetism, the entire lack of constructive imagination, the chaos and disorder and impotence towards the endthese and many other signs indicate that the Republican party in the State of New York, if it does not wish to bring on a catastrophe, must crush Sweetism and all that it stands for, and bring to the front in the coming campaign issues and leaders in touch with the vast and intricate needs and responsibilities of the time.

N

OVERALLS

EWSPAPER columns are full these days of stories concerning the latest panacea for the high cost of living-overalls. In fact, we have a very grave suspicion that newspaper columns are much fuller of this panacea than the minds of the people. The photographs, for instance, of people in overalls which have decorated the news columns are so suggestive of unmussed perfection that they do not carry with them the conviction that they should. Two of these photographs, by the way, are reproduced in this issue of The Outlook, and we leave our readers to judge whether they were staged for the occasion or not.

Even if the overall propaganda is something more than a good newspaper yarn, we suspect that its effect upon the high cost of living will be something less than noticeable. As a measure of individual thrift, to eke out a stock of old clothes until the price of garments begins to descend, the overall may serve a useful purpose. Beyond that the overall campaign signifies nothing but a futile protest against present conditions; and a protest which does not lead to effective action is

bad psychology and bad business.

time being Speaker of the New York Assembly-has shown itself in nearly every aspect of legislative activity this winter as an ominous recrudescence of the most reactionary Bourbonism.

Representing the spirit and purpose

within the next two weeks, we will

to shut down part of our plant. This

have

Iaw